Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4928428 | biostudies-other | 2016 May-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean.
Pakistan journal of medical sciences 20160501 3
<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether continuing midwifery care has more benefits than standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).<h4>Methods</h4>This study was conducted on women in labour who had history of previous cesarean section and received vaginal birth in obstetrical department of our hospital from May 2013 to November 2014. The included patients were divided randomly into observation group and control group. The women in labour allocated to the observation group re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of a midwifery model of care delivered in a freestanding birth center on maternal and infant outcomes when compared with conventional care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Birth certificate data for women who gave birth in Washington D.C. and D.C. residents who gave birth in other jurisdictions. STUDY DESIGN: Using propensity score modeling and instrumental variable analysis, we compare maternal and infant outcomes among women who receive prenatal care from birth center midwives and women who receive usual care. We match on observable characteristics available on the birth certificate, and we use distance to the birth center as an instrument. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Birth certificate data from 2005 to 2008. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Women who receive birth center care are less likely to have a C-section, more likely to carry to term, and are more likely to deliver on a weekend, suggesting less intervention overall. While less consistent, findings also suggest improved infant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For women without medical complications who are able to be served in either setting, our findings suggest that midwife-directed prenatal and labor care results in equal or improved maternal and infant outcomes.
| S-EPMC3796112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn Australia and internationally, there is concern about the growing proportion of women giving birth by caesarean section. There is evidence of increased risk of placenta accreta and percreta in subsequent pregnancies as well as decreased fertility; and significant resource implications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of continuity of midwifery care have reported reduced caesareans and other interventions in labour, as well as increased maternal satisfaction, with no statistically significant differences in perinatal morbidity or mortality. RCTs conducted in the UK and in Australia have largely measured the effect of teams of care providers (commonly 6-12 midwives) with very few testing caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care. This study aims to determine whether caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care for women at low risk of medical complications decreases the proportion of women delivering by caesarean section compared with women receiving 'standard' care. This paper presents the trial protocol in detail.Methods/designA two-arm RCT design will be used. Women who are identified at low medical risk will be recruited from the antenatal booking clinics of a tertiary women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Baseline data will be collected, then women randomised to caseload midwifery or standard low risk care. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a designated primary midwife with one or two antenatal visits conducted by a 'back-up' midwife. The midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary. If the woman has an extended labour, or if the primary midwife is unavailable, care will be provided by the back-up midwife. For women allocated to standard care, options include midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. Data will be collected at recruitment (self administered survey) and at 2 and 6 months postpartum by postal survey. Medical/obstetric outcomes will be abstracted from the medical record. The sample size of 2008 was calculated to identify a decrease in caesarean birth from 19 to 14% and detect a range of other significant clinical differences. Comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be conducted.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012607000073404.
| S-EPMC2526977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women's experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women's experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia.MethodsThe Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5?years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor.ResultsIn total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC.ConclusionThis study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC.
| S-EPMC7325036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rates of cesarean deliveries have been increasing, and contributes to the rising number of elective cesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies with associated maternal and neonatal risks. Multiple guidelines recommend that women be offered a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC). The objective of the study is to systematically review the literature on adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS:We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any adjunct clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting changes in TOLAC or VBAC rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS:Twenty-three studies of overall moderate to good methodological quality examined adjunct clinical interventions affecting TOLAC and/or VBAC rates: system-level interventions (three studies), provider-level interventions (three studies), guidelines or information for providers (seven studies), provider characteristics (four studies), and patient-level interventions (six studies). Provider-level interventions (opinion leader education, laborist, and obstetrician second opinion for cesarean sections) and provider characteristics (midwifery antenatal care, physicians on night float call schedules, and deliveries by family physicians) were associated with increased rates of VBAC. Few studies employing heterogeneous designs, sample sizes, interventions and comparators limited confidence in the effects. Studies of system-level and patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for providers reported mixed findings. CONCLUSIONS:Limited evidence indicates some provider-level interventions and provider characteristics may increase rates of attempted and successful TOLACs and/or VBACs, whereas other adjunct clinical interventions such as system-level interventions, patient-level interventions, and guidelines/information for healthcare providers show mixed findings.
| S-EPMC6249876 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionA calculator estimating likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) has been promoted by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, but little is known about how it is used and perceived in practice. Cutoffs for prohibiting labor after cesarean are discouraged by the calculator's developers, but such uses may be widespread. The purpose of this study was to determine how calculators predicting VBAC are used and perceived in midwifery practices.MethodsCertified nurse-midwives and certified midwives currently providing care for labor after cesarean were surveyed between January 17, 2019, and February 7, 2019. Quantitative and text data were collected regarding the uses and perceptions of calculators among midwives and their colleagues. We compared these findings with midwives' perceptions of their ability to accommodate patient wishes for labor after cesarean. We used descriptive content analysis to evaluate themes occurring in text responses.ResultsThere were 1305 valid responses. A requirement to use calculator scores for patient counseling was reported by 527 (40.4%) of responding midwives. Over 1 in 5 midwives reported that scores were used to discourage or prohibit labor after cesarean. Almost half reported some or strong disagreement with physician colleagues regarding calculator use. Interprofessional agreement and disagreement centered on how scores are used to direct clinical care or restrict patient options. Calculator scores were used in more than twice as many midwives' practices to discourage rather than encourage labor after cesarean. Descriptive analysis of text revealed 4 themes regarding calculators: inconsistent use, information counseling, informed consent, and influence patient management or options.DiscussionCalculators predicting likelihood of VBAC success are widely used in midwifery settings and are more often used to discourage than to encourage labor after cesarean. Midwives reported both directive and nondirective counseling based on calculator scores.
| S-EPMC7606451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the birth outcomes for women and babies following water immersion for labour only, or for labour and birth.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingMaternity hospital, Ireland, 2016-2019.ParticipantsA cohort of 190 low-risk women who used water immersion; 100 gave birth in water and 90 laboured only in water. A control group of 190 low-risk women who received standard care.MethodsLogistic regression analyses examined associations between water immersion and birth outcomes adjusting for confounders. A validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire was completed.Main outcome measuresPerineal tears, obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), neonatal unit admissions (NNU), breastfeeding and birth experiences.ResultsCompared with standard care, women who chose water immersion had no significant difference in perineal tears (71.4% vs 71.4%, adj OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.39) or in OASI (3.3% vs 3.8%, adj OR 0.91; 0.26-2.97). Women who chose water immersion were more likely to have a PPH ≥500 mL (10.5% vs 3.7%, adj OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57), and to exclusively breastfeed at discharge (71.1% vs 45.8%, adj OR 2.59; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.05). There was no significant difference in NNU admissions (3.7% vs 3.2%, adj OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.42). Women who gave birth in water were no more likely than women who used water for labour only to require perineal suturing (64% vs 80.5%, adj OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33), to experience OASI (3.0% vs 3.7%, adj OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 8.79) or PPH (8.0% vs 13.3%, adj OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.09). Women using water immersion reported more positive memories than women receiving standard care (p<0.01).ConclusionsWomen choosing water immersion for labour or birth were no more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes than women receiving standard care and rated their birth experiences more highly.
| S-EPMC7722381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the development of China's two-child-policy, vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) has aroused public concern. It is important to understand the labour characteristics and intrapartum management of women attempting VBAC to enhance the rates of successful VBAC. The purpose of our research was to investigate the differences in the characteristics of labor, intervention measures and perinatal outcomes between women who had a VBAC and primiparas or multiparas not undergoing VBAC, providing clinical references of intrapartum management for women who are planning a VBAC.Material and methodsThis observational retrospective study enrolled all women who laboured spontaneously and who had a VBAC (n = 139) at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in China between 2016 and 2019. They were allocated into VBAC group A (the previous cesarean section was performed before dilation of the cervix) and VBAC group B (the previous cesarean section was performed after dilation of the cervix). The primipara control group included 149 primiparae, and the multipara control group included 155 multiparae with second vaginal birth. Durations of labor, intervention measures and perinatal outcomes were compared among the groups.ResultsThe durations of labor, intrapartum interventions and maternal and neonatal outcomes in VBAC group A were similar to those of the VBAC group B. However, all women who had a VBAC and those in VBAC group A had shorter first, second and the total stages of labor than primiparae. All women with VBAC and those in VBAC group B had longer second stage of labor, but shorter third stage of labor than multiparae. Oxytocin, labor analgesia and artificial rupture of membranes were administered less often in women with VBAC than in primiparae, while phloroglucinol was administered more often in women with VBAC than in multiparae. Women who had a VBAC were more likely to receive episiotomy and had higher incidences of postpartum hemorrhage than primipara and multipara women.ConclusionsLabor characteristics, intrapartum interventions and perinatal outcomes in women who had a VBAC with cervical dilation were similar to those in women who had a VBAC without cervical dilation before the previous cesarean section, but differed significantly from those of multiparae and primiparae who did not undergo VBAC.
| S-EPMC9308341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Because failed trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with greater morbidity than planned cesarean, it is important to distinguish women with a high likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) from those likely to fail. The VBAC Calculator may help make this distinction but little is known about how often providers use it; nor whether use improves risk estimation and/or influences TOLAC counseling. Methods. In a cross-sectional survey, a convenience sample of obstetrical providers reported their likelihood (4-point Likert-type scale) to "Recommend,""Offer," or "Agree to" TOLAC for patients presented first through five clinical vignettes; then, in different order, by corresponding VBAC calculator estimates. Results. Of the 85 (of 101, 84% response rate) participants, 88% routinely performed TOLAC, but only 21% used the Calculator. The majority (67.1% to 89.3%) overestimated the likelihood of success for all but one vignette (which had the highest estimate of success). Most providers (42% to 89%) recommended TOLAC for all five vignettes. Given calculated estimates, the majority of providers (67% to 95%) recommended TOLAC for success estimates exceeding 40%. For estimates between 20% and 40%, most providers offered (58%) or agreed (68%) to TOLAC; and even below 20%, over half still agreed to TOLAC. The vignette with the lowest estimate of success (18.7%) had the weakest intraprovider agreement (kappa = 0.116; confidence interval [CI] = 0.045-0.187), whereas the strongest agreement was found in the two vignettes with highest success estimates: 77.9% (kappa = 0.549; CI = 0.382-0.716) and 96.6% (kappa = 0.527; CI = 0.284-0.770). Limitations. Survey responses may not reflect actual practice patterns. Conclusion. Providers are overly optimistic in their clinical estimation of VBAC success. Wider use of decision support could aid in risk stratification and TOLAC counseling to reduce patient morbidity.
| S-EPMC6540508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To systematically review the literature on clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates. METHODS:We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel (random effects model) relative risks (VBAC rate) and risk differences (uterine rupture and dehiscence). Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies (six trials and 23 cohorts) examined different clinical interventions affecting rates of vaginal deliveries among women with a prior cesarean delivery (CD). Methodological quality was good overall for the trials; however, concerns among the cohort studies regarding selection bias, comparability of groups and outcome measurement resulted in higher risk of bias. Interventions for labor induction, with or without cervical ripening, included pharmacologic (oxytocin, prostaglandins, misoprostol, mifepristone, epidural analgesia), non-pharmacologic (membrane sweep, amniotomy, balloon devices), and combined (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Single studies with small sample sizes and event rates contributed to most comparisons, with no clear differences between groups on rates of VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review evaluated clinical interventions directed at increasing the rate of vaginal delivery among women with a prior CD and found low to very low certainty in the body of evidence for cervical ripening and/or labor induction techniques. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform optimal clinical interventions among women attempting a trial of labor after a prior CD.
| S-EPMC6937863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Term Breech Trial compared the safety of planned cesarean and planned vaginal birth for breech presentations at term. The combined outcome of perinatal or neonatal death and serious neonatal morbidity was found to be significantly lower among babies delivered by planned cesarean section. In this study we conducted a cost analysis of the 2 approaches to breech presentations at delivery.MethodsWe used a third-party-payer (i.e., Ministry of Health) perspective. We included all costs for physician services and all hospital-related costs incurred by both the mother and the infant. We collected health care utilization and outcomes for all study participants during the trial. We used only the utilization data from countries with low national rates of perinatal death (< or = 20/1000). Seven hospitals across Canada (4 teaching and 3 community centres) were selected for unit cost calculations.ResultsThe estimated mean cost of a planned cesarean was significantly lower than that of a planned vaginal birth (7165 dollars v. 8042 dollars per mother and infant; mean difference -877 dollars, 95% credible interval -1286 dollars to -473 dollars). The estimated mean cost of a planned cesarean was lower than that of a planned vaginal birth for both women having a first birth (7255 dollars v. 8440 dollars) and women having had at least one prior birth (7071 dollars v. 7559 dollars). Although the treatment effect was largest in the subgroup of women having their first child, there was no statistically significant interaction between treatment and parity since the 95% credible intervals for difference in treatment effects between parity equalling zero and parity of one or greater all include zero.InterpretationPlanned cesarean section was found to be less costly than planned vaginal birth for the singleton fetus in a breech presentation at term in the Term Breech Trial.
| S-EPMC1421479 | biostudies-literature